Solid GMO scientific consensus – based on real science

Over and over, I’ve read comments on the internet (obviously, my first mistake) that there is no GMO scientific consensus regarding whether genetically modified organisms (generally crops or food) are safe for humans, animals, and the environment. Well, that’s simply not the case.

Furthermore, there are even claims that GMOs are not necessarily productive or provide higher yields, and so-called organic foods are healthier (they aren’t) and are better for the environment. Again, that’s not necessarily the case.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

The consensus is so clear, outside of vocal, loud and junk science pushing individuals and organizations, that many scientists call it the “Theory of anthropogenic climate change,” which would mean it’s at the pinnacle of scientific principles, essentially an unassailable fact.

There is no vote to get this consensus. There is not a secret organization that proclaims a consensus.

It’s actually a glacial process from preliminary observations to a point where scientists accept it as the consensus–there’s never really a moment when it becomes a consensus until you’ve passed that point.

It’s generally based on high-quality evidence, the best out there. It’s evidence that’s been put through the bright lights of criticism. It’s not done in a back room of some ancient ivory tower institution, over champagne and caviar.

The first thing you have to know is that a scientific consensus isn’t even close to a consensus you might find in a political meeting or a business team. In the layman’s use of the term, a consensus is equal to general agreement to move forward. It may or may not arrive because of good evidence, but it’s mostly a method to come to a decision.

The scientific consensus is a lot less formal, and much more reliant upon the quality and quantity of evidence. There is no “debate” about the evidence.

The scientific consensus is based on the accrued data, but it has been thoroughly scrutinized by the experts in the field over time. When we talk about the scientific consensus of climate change (or vaccines or GMOs or evolution), these weren’t made by a bunch of journalists or politicians sitting in that room with food and drinks. It’s made by literally hundreds or thousands of scientists in that field that have many accumulated years of experience and knowledge.

And let me reiterate – this knowledge doesn’t come by hours or days of “research” on Google or reading biased information. If a few thousand geologists, climatologists, and biologists give us a scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real, then that’s solid knowledge.

If you want to dispute this, then you need the accumulated hundreds of thousands of research years of evidence from thousands of real scientists–and then you better be willing to argue your contradicting views in the scientific world, not by being some talking head on Fox News without any real scientific credentials.

Scientific deniers, those who refuse to accept the volume of scientific data without offering the same amount and quality of evidence, are the evil twins of real science.

Now I want to be absolutely clear – the scientific consensus can be overturned. But it’s not a vote, nor is it a debate. It is scientific evidence of equal or better quality and quantity than what established the consensus. And since science is not dogmatic and close-minded, there can be a glacial change from one consensus to another. And it’s rare because arriving at the consensus is based on such huge volumes of evidence, it generally is considered a fact.

The solid GMO scientific consensus

Above, I used the example of climate change as an established scientific consensus. The deniers use all kinds of silly logical fallacies like cherry-picking studies that support the denialist opinion, appeal to false authority to show off a denialist scientist, and too many more to mention.

Ironically, there is a huge overlap between climate change supporters (using all of the science in support) and GMO deniers (using all of the science ignorance available to them). To be fair, it is also ironic there’s a small, but significant, overlap between GMO supporters and climate change deniers.

The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe … The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.

The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences is an international non-profit organization that has as its stated goals to promote cooperation among scientists, to defend scientific freedom, to encourage scientific responsibility, and to support scientific education and science outreach for the betterment of all humanity. It is the world’s largest and most prestigious general scientific society and is the publisher of the well-known scientific journal Science.

It assembles broad panels of scientists in particular fields of sciences, true experts, to review the scientific data. They then determine if there is a consensus-based a little on where the evidence is published (better journals mean better evidence, usually), the quantity of evidence, and how other research is influenced by the accumulated data.

And it’s not just one American-based scientific organization that has come to a GMO scientific consensus. There are several others which have publicly stated that GMOs are safe for the environment, for human consumption, and for livestock. If there’s some sort of aggressive conspiracy to get all of these American, European, UN, and other organizations to gather in secret to come to some outrageous lie about GMOs, then you’ll have to show that. These are independent scientific bodies who are respected worldwide.

Climate change has been investigated for over 40 years before we eventually got a scientific consensus. GMOs have been around for 10,000 years, give or take, and we have been studying them for several decades too. The consensus for both are so solid, disputing them is borderline denialism, nothing different than someone spouting off that evolution is a lie and the earth is only 6000 years old.

GMO foods are safe for human consumption. Of course, this is a ridiculous concern since these genes cannot possibly have any effect on humans, since they cannot be incorporated into the human genome, nor can they have any effect on humans. There is no biological plausibility that GMOs have an effect on any biological organism.

The scientific literature was heavily in favor of the safety, to both the environment and to humans, of GM based agriculture.

Environmental impact studies are predominant in the body of GM research, making up 68% of the 1,783 studies. These studies investigated the environmental impact on the crop-level, farm-level and landscape-level. The researchers found “little to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings.

A recent systematic review on the impacts of GMOs examined over 147 published articles. This meta-analysis concentrates on the most important GM crops–including herbicide-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton, as well as insect-resistant maize and cotton. These crops represent a sufficiently large number of original impact studies which have been published to estimate meaningful average effect sizes.

The authors’ meta-review provides the following conclusions:

GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%.

GM technology increased crop yields by 22%.

GM technology increased farmer profits by 68%.

Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

The authors found that:

The meta-analysis reveals robust evidence of GM crop benefits for farmers in developed and developing countries. Such evidence may help to gradually increase public trust in this technology.

The TL;DR version

There is a scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change is supported by the evidence.

There is a scientific consensus regarding the safety and productivity yields of GMO crops is supported by the evidence.

The vast majority of scientific experts in the field are part of each consensus.

If you are a denier about one, but not the other because the science supports one or another, you’re still a denier. But this is about the solid GMO scientific consensus, and it is solid–as solid as the consensus about evolution, climate change, vaccines, or gravity.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in May 2015. It has been completely revised and updated to include more comprehensive information, to improve readability and to add current research.

Please help me out by Tweeting out this article or posting it to your favorite Facebook group.
There are three ways you can help support this blog. First, you can use Patreon by clicking on the link below. It allows you to set up a monthly donation, which will go a long way to supporting the Skeptical Raptor

Related

Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!